On Tue, 23 May 2006 11:21:37 +0200 (CEST), Mate Kapoviæ
<
mkapovic@...> wrote:
>I would also like an acute explanation, but maybe an analogy is also
>possible? Almost all the verb suffixes in Slavic and Lithuanian are acute,
>cf. Slavic *-E´´ti (E =jat), *-a´´ti, Lith. -é.ti, -óti.
>However, *-eyH- and *-iH- would do nicely also
I don't think *-eyH- can explain Lithuanian ý (*eyH would
have given íe), which leaves only *iH.
Analogy makes sense for Slavic, but not for Baltic. In
Slavic we may think that a hypothetical *-i~ti (< *-ey-tei)
became *-i"ti after the model of -ê"ti and -a"ti, but in
Lithuanian, *-ey-tei > *-ie~ti, and even if the same kind of
analogy as in Slavic had worked, the result should have been
*-íeti. I can't think of a way that -ýti may have come
about by analogy. Not even if the prototype had been
zero-grade *-i-téi instead of *-ey-téi: in Slavic, a
hypothetical *-iti > *-i~ti > *-i"ti can be made to work,
because the personal forms have long -i~-. In Lithuanian,
they have -a~-, and the "essive-fientives" (-é.ti-verbs)
have short -i-, so neither analogy works.
>, but I suppose there's no
>proof of *-eyH- instead of *-ey- elsewhere in IE? We could perhaps compare
>this suffix with the optative one, where *-oih1- > *-oy- in the process of
>thematization.
=======================
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
mcv@...